| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 1:19:52 PM
 oh and Robert Plant! |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 3:40:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
He, as president, would not want to stop abortions whatsoever. He wants freedom and state and individual rights. He would not allow the federal government control that.
He was a doctor, and he delivered a thousand babies, so HE is against abortion. However, he would pas sno laws stopping a woman's right to choose.
that's a very important distinction, and it's one i wish more people made. a person in a position of authority should be able to have his or her own personal believes while keeping those beliefs without allowing them to override his obligation to the constitution and the philosophies behind it.
quote:
I would never want an abortion, but it's up to the female. I think it is cruel and disgusting, but the government should have no control over it, much like they shouldn't have control over 90% of the things they have power over.
just because something is cruel and/or disgusting doesn't make it wrong. hip replacement surgery is really gross. does that make it wrong? whether it's cruel or not is often a consideration that is trumped by the fact that it's sometimes necessary. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 10:03:23 AM
He, as president, would not want to stop abortions whatsoever. He wants freedom and state and individual rights. He would not allow the federal government control that.
He was a doctor, and he delivered a thousand babies, so HE is against abortion. However, he would pas sno laws stopping a woman's right to choose.
I agree, I would never want an abortion, but it's up to the female. I think it is cruel and disgusting, but the government should have no control over it, much like they shouldn't have control over 90% of the things they have power over. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 08/27/2007 : 01:57:05 AM
Ok, let me explain myself better. This isn't about the power of the federal government or the state government. What I read was that he wants to stop abortions, not allow same sex marriages, and not keep church and state separate. That's what I don't like. I don't care about him saying state governments should deal with it. There should never be a law telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies. Wither it's same sex marriage or abortion, there should be no law to ever restrict that.
Plus, church and state should be as far apart from each other as possible.
That's what I didn't like. |
| tericee |
Posted - 08/24/2007 : 04:13:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
incidently, i simply refuse to use bullshit phrases like "pro life" and "pro choice." ...i also don't use the term african-american. i say black people.
I love it when you make complete sense to me. :) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 3:10:29 PM
i would probably file the birthing of babies, and the things related to it, under the category of reproduction. in dealing with abortion, the reproductive right in question is the right to choose whether or not to reproduce. but yes, reproductive rights are a broader category than simply child bearing, and we are talking about child bearing here.
incidently, i simply refuse to use bullshit phrases like "pro life" and "pro choice." both are designed to say something bad about the people of the opposing view. someone who isn't "pro-life" might be said to be "anti life" or "pro death." someone who isn't "pro-choice" must be "anti choice" or some sort of facist. but logical problems arise from these terms. someone who claims to be "pro-life" can't, by his or her own admission, be for a war or capital punishment. ever. period. war and capital punishment cause death, which the person claim to be against. don't agree? change the name to something more accurate. another problem with the pro legalization of abortion camp is their slogans. "keep your laws off my body." really? even the ones about rape? basically, as someone who is pro-death and future iron-fisted ruler, i take exception to these names.
i also don't use the term african-american. i say black people. the trouble with african-american is that it makes two assumptions. the first being that the black person has is a descendant of africans, as opposed to jamacians or central/south americans. the second assumption is that the black person is american. maybe he's british. also, there are white africans. if the person says "call me african american" i will gladly call him that, or anything else he wants. why? because it's his choice what he gets to be called. when was someone granted to power to tell a whole group of people what to be called? was i in the bathroom when that happened? now, if blacks, or any other group, unanimously decides to be called something, then that's different. but no person, or a small group of people, gets to decided what everyone is called. that's bullshit. |
| tericee |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 03:30:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gnome44
It's the same as saying (in 1865), "Since you're not African American, it doesn't matter if slavery is abolished."
Yeah, the term African-American was coined back in 1865. Totally.
Also, it's interesting that somebody used the phrase "reproductive rights." It is alliterative, but it seems to me that abortion has nothing to do with reproduction, since that part is done once the egg and sperm join to create the zygote, which then becomes the embryo.
Maybe the phrase should be "child-bearing rights"
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 5:29:09 PM
that's true to an extent, gnome. i mean obviously you should care if [insert woman you care about] is pregnant. i wouldn't want to meet the man who wouldn't care. that wasn't really the thrust (booya!) of what i was saying, though. what i was trying to communicate is that to the man involved, his input on the topic of abortion, in terms of whether a woman should or shouldn't or legality, is academic at best. the woman should hear what he has to say, but the choice ultimately is hers, illegal or not. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 12:54:42 PM
That's a somewhat skewed argument.
Just because legislation doesn't affect someone, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't care about the legilslation.
It's the same as saying (in 1865), "Since you're not African American, it doesn't matter if slavery is abolished."
Even though I'm not a woman, it doesn't mean that I don't care about laws that affect women. If I was pro/anit-abortion, I would care very much if my daughter (which I don't have) is pregnant. Or, if my mother was pregnant.
So I think that men do enter the equation on abortion rights. Although men aren't affected, the women that they care very deeply about are indeed affected. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 12:47:59 PM
actually, since your both dudes, no one is going to tell you if you can or can't have an abortion, seeing as you're not carrying it. basically it comes down to having a state or federal government legislating the reproductive rights of women. you as men don't enter the equation at all. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 11:06:16 AM
FANK YOU!
I feel old... |
| tericee |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 10:57:49 AM
Happy birthday, Dave! (a little late) |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 09:26:38 AM
So you would rather have the federal government control if you can or can't have an abortion?
he wants states rights, so that if the people vote to have abortion they can. if of the majority votes not, they can't.
He pretty much wants to abolish the entire federal government. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 08:42:38 AM
Decentralization of government can be a good thing... |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 03:40:47 AM
From Wiki "Also in 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would allow state and local governments to display religious text and imagery, to prohibit abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.[101]"
He will never have my vote. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 08/21/2007 : 10:08:27 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 08/21/2007 : 07:35:51 AM
Screw you, Dave! |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 08/21/2007 : 02:18:21 AM
Um, who is Ron Paul?
Oh, and happy b-day Ruby |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 9:28:16 PM
Thanks guys you're the best! Is it freezing everywhere or just NJ?  |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 7:07:32 PM
Happy Birthday!!! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 6:09:56 PM
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! I had no idea and I even posted a story referencing Ron Paul earlier today. How SYNCHRONISTIC!!!
HOPE IT'S A GREAT ONE DAVE!!!! |
| PJK |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 5:09:11 PM
HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAVE!!! Hope you celebrate it for all it's worth! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 2:30:32 PM
happy birthday, rube. |
|
|
